ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Cost-utility analysis of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation as adjunctive therapies in Chinese patients with major depressive disorder.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMajor depressive disorder (MDD) imposes a substantial burden in China, with many patients showing an inadequate response to first-line drugs. While repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) show promise, their economic value remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rTMS, tDCS, and their combination as adjunctive therapies for MDD in China.
methodsA 4-week Markov model used efficacy data from a Phase II trial (ChiCTR2100052122). Four strategies were compared: drug therapy alone, drug plus rTMS, drug plus tDCS, and combined therapy (rTMS+tDCS+drug). Direct and indirect costs were recorded weekly. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was 1-3 times China's 2024 GDP per capita (¥95,749 - ¥287,247 per QALY). Deterministic and scenario analyses tested robustness and longer treatment durations.
resultsAll combination therapies outperformed drug therapy alone. The ICERs for rTMS, tDCS, and combined therapy were ¥113,174/QALY, ¥130,194/QALY, and ¥177,569/QALY, respectively - all below the WTP threshold. Compared with rTMS, tDCS showed better cost-effectiveness. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses, and tDCS's economic advantage grew with longer treatment duration.
conclusionsIn the Chinese healthcare context, both rTMS and tDCS as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy are cost-effective, with tDCS showing a better cost-effectiveness ratio and increasingly prominent benefits in long-term treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.